Bill
SF 5243
The bill streamlines utility relocations tied to state highway projects by allowing the state to pay relocation costs directly, establish fast-track permits and coordination, and d
Title: Reimbursement requirement of certain utility facility relocations caused by transportation projects
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Author: Senator Howe (with co-sponsor Jeff Howe)
Status: Introduced and referred to Transportation (as of 4/29/2026)
Purpose and overall intent
- This bill seeks to revise and codify how utility relocations prompted by state transportation projects are handled, with a focus on reimbursing or paying for relocation costs. It aims to clarify when the state can act as the agent for relocating facilities, how costs are reimbursed, and to streamline permitting and coordination for relocations in the trunk highway system and related projects.
Key provisions and changes (organized by section)
Section 1. Amends Minnesota Statutes 2024, §161.45, subd. 2 (Relocation of utility work by the state)
- Allows the relocation of a utility facility necessitated by construction of a trunk highway project to be:
- Executed as part of a state highway project contract or as a separate contract under state authority, if the utility owner/operator requests the commissioner to act as its agent and if the commissioner determines the action is in the state's best interests.
- The state may pay the relocation cost directly to the contractor, avoiding the utility needing to pay upfront and then seek reimbursement.
- If relocation must be coordinated with another state contractor, the commissioner must hold a coordination meeting and issue a consolidated relocation schedule before a notice to proceed; the other contractor must provide advance notice of relocation dates.
Section 2. Amends Minnesota Statutes 2024, §161.45, subd. 6 (High voltage transmission; constructability report; advance notice)
- Introduces or clarifies:
- A constructability report for potential colocation of transmission lines along trunk highway corridors, prepared by the utility/transmission line developer in consultation with the commissioner.
- The constructability report is used to plan/approve colocation projects and must include terms for the project.
- The report must be approved by the commissioner and the colocation applicants before the commissioner approves and issues a permit for trunk highway ROW use.
- The report must include an agreed-upon timeframe during which relocation requests cannot be made; if possible, the commissioner should provide four years of advance notice for relocation.
- If relocation is needed sooner than the agreed timeframe or with less than four years’ notice, the commissioner is responsible for 75% of relocation costs.
Section 3. [161.451] Relocation Permits
- Establishes an expedited relocation permit review process:
- Within 10 business days of a written relocation notice, the DOT must designate a single utility-relocation permitting coordinator to manage interagency review and resolve sequencing conflicts.
- A relocation plan must be submitted by the utility within 120 days of a written request.
- Reviewing agencies must respond within 15 business days to determine completeness; permit decisions must occur within 30 calendar days of completeness. If not acted upon, the permit is deemed approved, subject to safety conditions and agency authority to require adjustments.
- Relocation agreement in lieu of permit (Section 3, Subd. 3):
- For relocations wholly within existing public road ROW and not requiring a new environmental permit beyond the relocation footprint, the commissioner and utility may sign a relocation schedule/agreement to substitute for separate ROW permits.
- The agreement must cover scope, sequencing milestones, traffic control, restoration standards, safety, and dispute resolution.
- Limitations (Section 3, Subd. 4):
- The section does not apply to permits for new utility construction beyond the relocation footprint.
- Safety standards enforcement remains unaffected.
Section 4. Amends Minnesota Statutes 2025 Supplement, §161.46, subd. 1 (Definitions)
- Expands definitions related to:
- Utility facility: broad coverage of power, gas, telecommunications, water, sewer, oil, etc., that use public highways for locating facilities.
- Cost of relocation: total amount paid by the utility owner attributable to relocation, minus increases in the new facility’s value and any salvage value from the old facility.
- High voltage transmission line: as defined in the statute.
- Permit: includes various state-level approvals required solely to perform relocation work (excluding permits for new capacity or new route miles beyond the relocation footprint).
- Relocation: moving/modifying/abandoning/removing a utility facility as defined.
- State transportation project: trunk highways, bridges, interchanges, or related improvements undertaken by the commissioner.
Section 5. Amends Minnesota Statutes 2024, §161.46, subd. 2 (Relocation of facilities; reimbursement)
- For relocations necessitated by state transportation projects on federally aided trunk highways (including urban extensions) within the National System of Interstate Highways:
- The utility must relocate the facility per the commissioner's order.
- Substantial reimbursement framework: upon completion of relocation, the cost is paid from the trunk highway fund by the commissioner, so long as the amount reimbursed to the utility does not exceed the federal reimbursement basis for the Interstate system.
- The commissioner must, to the extent practicable, provide at least four years’ notice to the utility owner/operator before relocation is required.
Section 6. [161.461] Citation
- Establishes the short title: the “Critical Infrastructure Permitting and Reimbursement Fairness Act.”
Potential impacts and who is affected
Timelines and procedural notes
Overall, SF 5243 aims to modernize and streamline the relocation of utility facilities tied to state transportation projects, incentivize timely coordination and planning, and establish clear reimbursement rules to protect state funds and align with federal support for interstate-related infrastructure.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
